I don't agree that "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women" is not a misrepresentation of her views. I think it is a misrepresentation of what she has written.
My current point is that I can't figure out why you feel the need to parse this and other quotes in such fine detail when I think it's pretty fucking obvious from the full text, so I'm not interested in a lot of discussion.
She keeps saying things about how bad it would be if trans women, whom she calls "men", were allowed in women's spaces, so I think it's reasonable to take her as being broadly opposed.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
I expressly said what my argument was (using model minorities as deserving rights doesn’t show that you support those rights as bigots often use that tactic)
Well, you posted in support of fragment's post. I took you to be saying "I'm Bey and I approve this message". I don't think it is reasonable for someone to support an argument and then disown it. I think it was reasonable of me to hold you to some account for the argument you appeared to be seconding.
I do think it’s soft evidence
That surprises me. These are the words we are talking about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKR
Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass.
Talk me through it. Where does Rowling's bigotry begin to show exactly?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Last edited by mickthinks; 11-08-2023 at 01:45 PM.
Ya know, I still don't understand why the only evidence allowed are paragraphs you've selected. Your previous reply didn't explain it. I really have no idea why we're supposed to be reading these words in a complete vacuum or why reality isn't allowed into evidence.
--
Analogy
I know a good one.
They did it the correct way.
The way I approve of, but not the way I will ever do.
They're not like others wanting it fast and easy.
That's why I support my Mexican immigrant friend.
(Only in this analogy the 'others' aren't illegal immigrants but those supporting legal immigration reform)
You know, it's been over ten years and I still don't entirely understand why we're talking to mickthinks at all. Like, the username itself appears to be a lie.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
You know, it's been over ten years and I still don't entirely understand why we're talking to mickthinks at all. Like, the username itself appears to be a lie.
I don't think that is fair. I don't agree with Mick here, but I think he has made many worthwhile contributions at and he's made me reconsider positions on more than one occasion.
Yeah if anything Mick's a bit too literal and over thinking of things. Normally I can find some sort of path of reasoning, even if it might not be the path I would choose, and is why I've said I don't understand because in this case I just don't understand.
The full context of all the other things JKR has said on the topic, the people she associates with, the people whose tweets she likes and the content of those tweets, her response to the controversy and the fact that she has, after multiple years of controversy, never come out and plainly stated what her position is, and that it lines up with the one mick apparently thinks we must charitably attribute to her, all lead me to believe she does not hold the position that mick thinks I must charitably attribute to her.
I don't know the precise point where she would draw the line, but it's pretty clear to me that if she drew it in a place that was broadly acceptable to the bulk of her critics, she would've said so by now.
The notion that she's merely trying to prevent a cis man from declaring "I'm a woman now" with no psychological evaluation, no medical treatment or even paperwork, and then perving on or raping women in bathrooms just isn't plausible.
Beyond that, she's expressed opinions that being trans is some kind of epidemic that's being pushed by activists and there are children who are transitioning without any due diligence from the medical community.
She clearly is not only focused on bathrooms and her disagreements with trans activists are not limited to that and there's no principle of logic or charity that I must accept that she has positions on one issue and is unlikely to hold other positions that she has not explicitly stated but never explicitly disavowed despite those positions being highly correlated with each other.
People were calling her out based off her Twitter likes well before she came out with what she said. I've encountered homophobes who tried to obscure their true feelings, that I identified before others did. It's not like I'm saying we're mindreaders, but LGBT people often can ferret out the bigots before others do.
It's not unreasonable to judge her when the solution for her is very simple: come out and plainly state that you don't support the things people are attributing to you. Don't state it as "oh I don't hate people the way they say I do" which is vague and about feelings, rather than specific policy positions, but "actually, I have no problem with trans women who have begun some form of medical transition, such as taking hormones, using the women's bathroom."
You might as well be arguing with women that the red flags they pick up from men aren't really danger signs because logically speaking they could say something off-putting but still not be a rapist. The principle of charity says you shouldn't infer what they didn't say. Well, ok, but that's not actually a reasonable way to go about life. Red flags are signs, based on patterns, nobody is saying they're 100% proof. And JKR has plenty of them.
(And after all, JKR's argument is basically based on the same sort of thing! Her argument is not that she has proof that any particular trans person in the bathroom is actually a cis man who is a sexual assaulter or rapist, but that there's some sufficient pattern for it to be reasonable for women to not want at least certain trans people in there!)
You know, it's been over ten years and I still don't entirely understand why we're talking to mickthinks at all. Like, the username itself appears to be a lie.
I will join the slim and Ari.
I think Mick can seem like a troll because he gets a fixed idea and rides it. I would understand if you look at just this conversation and reach your conclusion, but I think Mick argues in good faith even if it can seem pedantic. At times, I find his posts more providing nuance than arguing pedantry which I think is because he does think about things in detail.
You know, it's been over ten years and I still don't entirely understand why we're talking to mickthinks at all. Like, the username itself appears to be a lie.
I don't think that is fair. I don't agree with Mick here, but I think he has made many worthwhile contributions at and he's made me reconsider positions on more than one occasion.
Huh! Maybe I just had a run of particularly bad luck, or he's changed a lot since I last read his stuff like ten years ago. Thanks, I will update my views.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
(I think mick has mellowed a bit from a decade ago or whenever, but in this thread he is very much following that pattern of behavior you're getting at.)
Anyway, on the concrete question: I also don't understand why these particular paragraphs of Rowling's writing ought to be of particular importance compared to other paragraphs, and why other things she's done or written shouldn't be considered when interpreting these.
Even if she theoretically meant a different thing when she wrote them, people change. Her current behavior sends a clear message.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
Based on these premises, we analyse a sampleof 1252 individuals from seven burial sites in central Europe, spanning the Early Neolithic and the LateBronze Age (c. 5500–1200 BCE), and test the hypo-thesis that prehistoric gender is binary. Our results suggest that the answer is complex. They show that the binary model accounts for most of the variability of the sample, but not all of it. We also find evidenceof circular argumentations in the determination of sex and gender in prehistoric burials that appear to bias the data in favour of the binary model. We con-clude that old data support the existence of a smallbut quantitatively relevant minority diverging fromthe binary model throughout the Neolithic and the theBronze Age. At the same time, we find that theerror margin of sex determinations based on osteo-logical analyses still leaves too much room for uncertainty
And
Quote:
In some exceptional cases, ‘mismatched’sex/gendercombinations are sufficiently well documented to allow one to exclude determination error. The ques-tion is what these exceptional cases actually represent: are they exceptions or minorities?
So this is a great example of how fucked up these people are.
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
So this is a great example of how fucked up these people are.
Hi there small prey, we will certainly make sure to protect you, you're going to be lovely to consume and discard in a few years... wait what? You're not my preferred meat, out of the chicken coup with thee!!
A lot makes more sense when I realized they see people not as individuals but as things to be used and consumed to further their own goals.
So this is a great example of how fucked up these people are.
Hi there small prey, we will certainly make sure to protect you, you're going to be lovely to consume and discard in a few years... wait what? You're not my preferred meat, out of the chicken coup with thee!!
A lot makes more sense when I realized they see people not as individuals but as things to be used and consumed to further their own goals.
Ohhh, priorities, and "laws." Hm.
How will the law be enforced, and, by whom? hm, SENATOR CHECKSPRIVATES?
How is the enforcement of this law FUNDED? hm, SENATOR CHECKSPRIVATES?
I say: Ask those lawmakers every time for every law. This applies to all colors of Cotton Candy Spinners who "make" "laws."
So this is a great example of how fucked up these people are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
It's the way the internet is going, no nuanced or researched thought, only out of context drama posts for max emotional winning.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
I am shocked, shocked I tell you that the woman who wrote about hooked nosed goblin bankers turns out to be into the holocaust denial and trans erasure.
I sometimes wonder if a Joanne who never got rich would have gone to therapy because she couldn't hide in a literal castle retweeting trolls, or if this is just how she would have ended up, we just get to see it publicly.
It's hard to even imagine why some people resist the new reality.
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
I sometimes wonder if a Joanne who never got rich would have gone to therapy because she couldn't hide in a literal castle retweeting trolls, or if this is just how she would have ended up, we just get to see it publicly.
no matter which side is right, it's kinda telling that the kidwizardbook discourse has gotten to the point where people are arguing about whether or not the author is technically denying the holocaust
__________________ Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
__________________
"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, "Is it reasonable?""
Re: Return to Gender 101
and he's made me reconsider positions on more than one occasion.
Linear Mode
